Jefferson County v. United States, 12008.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 12008.,12008. |
| Citation | 164 F.2d 184 |
| Parties | JEFFERSON COUNTY, FLA., et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen. of Florida, and T. Paine Kelly, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Fla., for appellants.
Thomas L. McKevitt, Roger P. Marquis, and Alvin O. West, all of Washington, D. C., A. Devitt Vanech, Asst. Atty. Gen., and George Earl Hoffman, U. S. Atty., of Pensacola, Fla., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
This suit was brought by the United States to obtain relief from taxes assessed on, and to establish its tax immunity for the years in question as to, lands in Jefferson County, Florida.
The defenses were: (1) That the United States did not own the beneficial title to the lands but merely held a bare legal title in trust for the Florida Rural Rehabilitation Corporation; (2) that the lands were taxable under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act;1 (3) that under the provisions of the Resettlement Act,2 the Resettlement Administration was expressly authorized to enter into agreements for the payment by the United States, on lands held by it for any resettlement project or any rural rehabilitation purpose, of sums in lieu of taxes, and the Secretary of Agriculture had for some years paid such sums.
The case was submitted to the judge without a jury on a stipulation of fact, written exhibits, and the oral evidence of one witness, Schwen, Chief of Farm Ownership Loan Service Section, an employee of the Department of Agriculture. In answer to specific questions he testified that none of the lands involved in the suit were being utilized for the purpose of Title I of the Bankhead-Jones Act.
It was stipulated, and the district judge found as a fact, that the United States by deed dated April 20, 1938, acquired title to the lands in controversy. He found too: That the lands were acquired with funds transferred to the United States by the Florida Rural Rehabilitation Corp.;3 that all of the lands appeared on the tax rolls of Jefferson County, Florida, for the year 1943 and were assessed in the name of the United States; that they were offered for sale for non-payment of taxes, and tax certificates issued to the defendant, Jefferson County; and that the properties had subsequent to January 1, 1944, been conveyed by the United States to individual purchasers, each deed containing a warranty that as of the date of title there were no valid liens for taxes on the property. He concluded: that the lands were the property of the United States and not subject to taxation; that the taxes levied and the tax certificates based thereon were void; that the United States should have judgment cancelling the tax certificates and restraining the defendants from asserting any lien by virtue thereof, and he gave judgment accordingly.
We think it may not be doubted that the judgment was right and must be affirmed. The lands were deeded to, and were the property of, the United States. They were assessed on the rolls to the United States. The burden was therefore, strongly on the County to show that the United States did not own the lands, or if did, was not exempt as to them. The County offered no evidence whatever tending to show that the United States was not the owner. All of the proof showed that it was. The lands were bought by, and in the name of the United States. They were owned by the United States in fee simple absolute, and the fact that by law they were devoted to certain purposes would have no effect whatever to deprive it of its sovereign exemption.4
Appellants' second point that the property is not exempt because the Bankhead-Jones Act provides otherwise is no better taken. There is no evidence whatever that this property was at the time the taxes were assessed being utilized under the provisions of that law. In addition, Section 1924, the tax subjection section, is specifically made to apply to properties of the kind dealt with in the Act, held in the name of the Secretary or the Farmers' Home Corporation. Here the properties were not in their names but in the name of the United States. If it could be contended that the proviso5 in Section 43 of the Act could in any case where the lands were not in the name of the Secretary or the Corporation, but in that of the United States, bring them under Subd. (a) Sec. 1024, 7 U.S.C.A., no facts are shown which would make out such a case here.
Appellants' third point, that under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. 1,000 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.
... ... Hero, Jr., Mrs. Numa C. Hero, Alvin A. Hero, and Jefferson & Plaquemines Drainage Dist ... Monroe & Lemann, Ralph N. Jackson, New Orleans, ... United States v. County of Allegheny, 322 U.S. 174, 64 S.Ct. 908, 88 L. Ed. 1209; Mayo v. United States, 319 U.S. 441, 63 ... ...
-
United States v. County of San Diego
...United States, the burden is on the taxing authority to show that the property is not immune from taxation. See Jefferson County v. United States, 164 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1947). In talking of congressional consent or waiver in taxation matters, the courts speak in terms of an express or affi......
-
Yoknapatawpha Drainage Dist. No. 2 v. United States, 16283.
...174, 64 S.Ct. 908, 88 L.Ed. 1209; Mayo v. United States, 1943, 319 U.S. 441, 63 S.Ct. 1137, 87 L. Ed. 1504; and Jefferson County v. United States, 5 Cir., 1947, 164 F.2d 184. At the trial to determine just compensation for the district lands taken, the court instructed the jury, after heari......